1 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Donald Anderson, USEPA 

FROM: Kathleen Wu, Betsy Bicknell, and Anne Jones, ERG 

DATE: August 1, 2011 

SUBJECT: Report of Quality Activities Supporting Alaska Seafood Processing 

Questionnaire Database Development and Analysis 

1. PURPOSE 

ERG supported EPA in a data collection effort through the Questionnaire for Canned and 

Preserved Seafood processing Facilities in Certain Locations of Alaska (hereafter, the 

questionnaire). The questionnaire was sent to nine Alaska seafood processing companies from 

which EPA expected responses for 68 facilities. This report describes the data collection effort, 

the compilation of data from the questionnaire responses, the evaluation procedures for the 

collected information, and the quality assurance steps taken. The activities ERG performed to 

control the quality of the collected information are detailed in Revised Draft Quality Assurance 

Project Plan: Support for EPA Response to Industry Petition on ELGs for Non-Remote Alaskan 

Seafood Processors, dated November 12, 2010 and conditionally approved by EPA on November 

29, 2010 (hereafter, the QAPP). 

2. QUESTIONNAIRE PROCESSING AND QC PROCEDURES 

The questionnaire requested information about each facility that the company operates in Alaska. 

Among other things, the questionnaire requested information about the facility’s operation, 

processing capacity, seafood processing waste generation, and current waste recycle/recovery 

and disposal practices. The questionnaire also asked for financial information to characterize the 

economic status of each facility and its owner firm, and to estimate the possible economic 

impacts associated with alternative waste disposal practices. 

ERG developed a Microsoft Access® database to store questionnaire responses. With this 

database, ERG compiled and analyzed facility information submitted in response to the 

questionnaire. This effort included: 

• Developing a tracking sheet to record the receipt of the questionnaire responses and 

completion of all the major questionnaire components; 

• Entering questionnaire responses into the database (key entry) and 100% QC of key 

entry; 
2 

• Developing and executing database queries to check the range and logic of responses and 

notifying EPA of problematic responses; 

• Analyzing the questionnaire database to prepare input for the cost calculation. 

ERG also supported EPA in collecting and analyzing information collected via telephone, e-mail, 

and or letter requests, and analyzing additional information from Annual Reports provided by 

EPA Region 10. Finally, ERG supported EPA during site visits at Alaskan seafood processing 

plants and one stand-alone seafood processing plant. During these site visits, ERG collected 

detailed information about plant waste management activities. These additional data sources 

were used to supplement information provided in the questionnaire where needed. 

2.1. Receipt of Questionnaires

Upon receipt of a completed questionnaire, a CBI-cleared ERG employee recorded receipt details 

in a tracking spreadsheet and processed the questionnaire through a general completeness check. 

These checks allowed ERG to address any immediate completeness issues and determine 

whether the questionnaire should be handled as CBI. This check did not include a thorough 

review of each question in the questionnaire, but did determine overall completeness of the 

tables within the questionnaire. Table 1 shows the information documented in the tracking 

spreadsheet for both the financial and technical portions of the questionnaire. 

Table 1 - Questionnaire Tracking and Completeness Check Criteria 

Financial Section Technical Section 

Tracking 

Documentation 

Date of Receipt Date of Receipt

Person tracking/conducting the check Person tracking/conducting the check

Copy log of all electronic and hardcopies Copy log of all electronic and hardcopies 

Confirmation email Confirmation email

Tracking and 

Completeness 

Check Criteria 

Company Name Facility Name

Financial Contact Information Technical Contact Information

Assigned Document Control Number Assigned Document Control Number

All questionnaire sections are present All questionnaire sections are present

CBI Claims CBI Claims

Attachments Attachments

Signed and completed Certification 

Statement NA 

NA 

Questionnaire submitted for all facilities 

requested 

NA Additional facilities included voluntarily

NA NPDES Permit Number

NA Copy Number

NA Facility Location

Any clearly deficient responses or major inconsistencies were first discussed with EPA who 

individually followed up with the individual respondents. Minor issues were resolved through 

confirmation with EPA Region 10, facility’s Annual Reports, site visit report information, or 

direct phone call with a facility contact. Because the majority of questionnaires included 

responses that were claimed as CBI, ERG treated all questionnaire information as such, and 
3 

stored all electronic and hardcopy surveys in the same CBI network and CBI file storage area, 

regardless of CBI status. Respondents with questionnaires that met the completeness check 

criteria were sent an email conformation and a duplicate hardcopy of the questionnaire was sent 

to ERG’s Lexington office for processing and review of economic information by ERG 

economists. The original responses were retained at ERG’s Chantilly office for further 

processing and review of the technical information by ERG scientists and engineers. 

2.2. Data Entry

CBI-cleared ERG employees with prior experience related to questionnaire data entry 

transcribed responses from hardcopy questionnaires into the questionnaire database. For simple 

questions they typed responses directly into the database tables, and they used Access Forms to 

enter responses provided in table form. This combination approach minimized both data entry 

errors and database programming. In addition to question responses, the database identifies all 

responses industry respondents claimed as CBI. Skipped questions or questions left blank were 

left as blanks within the questionnaire database. 

EPA received questionnaires from both land-based facilities and off-shore vessel based facilities 

operated by the nine seafood processing companies. ERG tracked receipt of questionnaires from 

all of the off-shore based facilities but did not enter all survey responses into the database. Of the 

nine seafood processing companies surveyed, ERG received responses from 58 facilities but only 

entered technical information from 52 facilities into the database. The remaining six facilities not 

entered were off-shore vessel based processing faculties. In one unique scenario, EPA received 

survey responses from three Inlet Fish Producers facilities. Due to site-specific operational 

management of their facilities, ERG and EPA combined the responses of three facilities into one 

survey response included in the 52 total facilities entered in the database. All remaining analyses 

were solely based on the 52 facilities entered into the database. Information from the 6 off-shore 

facilities was excluded. 

2.3. Database QC

To ensure accuracy of the database, a second CBI-cleared ERG staff member independently 

reviewed 100% of the database entries for data entry accuracy. When errors in database entry 

were discovered during review, ERG corrected the erroneous data fields. An ERG staff member 

not involved in the data entry corrections performed a 100% check of the corrected fields to 

ensure that resolved errors were corrected in the Microsoft Access database. In addition, any 

formatting errors or field names changes associated with the original database design were also 

corrected when issues were identified. In total, ERG made 32 fixes to the database design and 

corrected 102 data entry errors. 

3. RANGE AND LOGIC CHECKS 

After all responses were entered into the database, ERG executed a series of queries to determine 

whether any responses were missing, did not add to a reported total, were outliers, were 

inconsistent with responses to other questions, or are otherwise problematic for a given question 

for a given questionnaire response. ERG reviewed the logic and programming for database 

queries and documented this review in a database table. ERG prepared a report documenting the 
4 

findings of these checks. After follow up with respondents, ERG added clarified or supplemental 

responses obtained by EPA and ERG into the database. Some examples include: 

• Requesting missing financial (Part-A) information; 

• Clarifying ambiguous or missing NPDES permit numbers; 

• Verifying company ownership organization; 

• Verifying vessel ownership; and 

• Clarifying by-product recovery activities. 

3.1. Part A: Corporate Financial Information 

Part A of the questionnaire collected financial information on the corporation level for the nine 

seafood processing companies. For this section, ERG created five queries encompassing the 

following range and logic checks for this section: 

• Mandatory questions; 

• Optional questions; 

• Dependent questions (i.e., did they follow the skip pattern); 

• Consistency of answers between related questions; 

• Priority of the question; 

• Minimum and maximum ranges for numerical responses; 

• Tally of responses for Yes/No questions; 

• Completion quality (number of responses received out of total number of 

responses expected); and 

• Issues identified. 

ERG also reviewed the answers to specific questions that were extracted manually prior to 

database delivery to determine whether they seemed consistent with what was expected. All data 

extracted was entered into the financial modeling spreadsheets by one analyst, checked by 

another analyst, and any changes made were confirmed by a third analyst. 

3.2. Part B: Facility Information

Part B of the questionnaire requested technical and financial information for individual facilities 

operated by the nine corporate entities. ERG entered questionnaire responses from 52 facilities 

into the Access database and analyzed the responses using range and logic checks described in 

the subsections below. 

3.2.1. Prioritization

ERG will use the information collected by the questionnaire to support EPA’s analysis of certain 

“processing centers1”, but EPA received survey responses for facilities across all of Alaska. As a 

 

1

 Processing centers are defined as subcategories of all Alaska seafood processors generally sorted by remote or nonremote geographic regions and type of fish or shellfish harvested. By doing so, EPA can take into account the 

unique characteristics of seafood processing facilitates and how they process the seafood in their region. 
5 

result, ERG prioritized the 52 facilities into “High”, “Medium” and “Lower” categories 

depending on their processing center. ERG also organized the facilities in the priority table by 

parent company, NPDES permit number, and location. Prioritizing the survey responses for 

analysis in this manner allowed for a more focused review of the quality of responses from 

facilities located in the specific locations of interest. Table 2 shows the priority level of each 

processing center. 

Table 2 - Prioritization of Processing Centers in Alaska 

High Medium Lower

Ketchikan Kenai Peninsula/Seward Akutan

Petersburg Kodiak Sand Point

Cordova Dutch Harbor Naknek

Juneau Sitka St Paul

Chignik

Wrangell

Larsen

Egegik

Alitak

Craig

King Cove

Dillingham

Port Moller

Valdez

Anchorage

3.2.2. Database Queries 

ERG performed range and logic checks on the three prioritization categories separately. By 

QCing the categories separately ERG could focus on data needed to support EPA’s current 

efforts. ERG created over 100 queries to check the range and logic for all the responses provided 

in Part B of the questionnaire. The following is the list of range and logic checks performed on 

this section. 

• Mandatory questions; 

• Optional questions; 

• Dependent questions (i.e., did they follow the skip pattern); 

• Consistency of answers between related questions; 

• Priority of the question; 

• Minimum and maximum ranges for numerical responses; 

• Tally of responses for Yes/No questions; 

• Completion quality (number of responses received out of total number of responses 

expected); and 

• Issues identified were noted. 
6 

ERG followed the same general method to create each query but customized certain tallies, 

calculations, or assessments of completeness depending on the specifics of the question. The 

following is the generalized method used to create each query. 

1. The facility responses table were linked to the priority category using NPDES permit 

number; 

2. The fields of interest were pulled in the query. 

3. The questions were assessed as either mandatory, optional, or dependant. 

4. If a question is dependent on the response to a prior question, the prior question was 

assessed to determine if a response was expected. 

5. After establishing the total number of responses expected, a tally of responses was 

made to assess response completeness. ERG assumed that questions left blank 

indicated no response. For questions with multiple parts and an expected numerical 

response, ERG assumed that blanks in a partially completed question indicated a zero 

and a completed question. 

6. All numerical responses were extracted and analyzed for their minimum and 

maximum ranges. Any outliers were identified. 

7. The tally of responses to yes/no questions was extracted. 

8. A consistency check was conducted for questions that were linked or partially 

dependent. For example, a check was performed to assess whether the species of 

seafood processed at the plant were consistent with the species of seafood reported in 

that annual production rates. 

9. Inconsistencies within questionnaires, clear misinterpretation of questions, or 

questions with very low completion rates were identified as a possible questionnaire 

wording or formatting issues. 

3.3. Range and Logic Summary Tables

ERG designed and created four summary tables to report the findings of the range and logic 

checks. One table presented the results for Part A of the questionnaire and the three other tables 

presented the results for Part B of the questionnaire by their “High”, “Medium”, and “Low” 

priority listing (see Attachment A). The final tallies and range calculations from the queries were 

imported electronically “as is” from the database into the summary table and edited for 

presentation in some cases. Where applicable, some values and notes were manually key entered 

into the tables. Each table listed the questions in the appropriate section and presented an 

analysis of each range and logic check criteria mentioned in the section 3.2. 

3.4. QC of Range and Logic Tables 

To ensure the accuracy of the range and logic tables, a second CBI-cleared ERG staff member 

independently reviewed 100% of the table entries. The reviewer started with the query 

development and design and then reviewed that values were transferred to the summary tables 

without errors. In addition, several values reported in the summary table were also manually 

checked with the original database, by creating new queries. The reviewer then highlighted any 

inconsistencies identified and confirmed that errors were corrected. 
7 

3.5. Range and Logic Results 

In general, the range and logic checks helped ERG quickly identify weaknesses in the 

questionnaire responses. Note that results reported below are based on the facility responses at 

the time of the range and logic check analysis2. Below is a summary of the quality of responses 

in each of the range and logic summary tables. 

Company Level Part A – For questions in Part A, completion ranged from 50% to 100% for all 

but one questions. The majority of the questions had a completion rate of 100%. Questions A-9 

and A-19, which pertained to NAICS codes and the total number of US facilities in operation 

and total number of employees, had poor percent completion. This may be due to the nature of 

the industry where there are several layers of ownership of facilities; the variability of off-shore 

facilities; and the use of many part-time migrant workers. ERG did not identify issues with 

following skip patters, units, or interpretation of questions. No outliers were identified. 

High Priority Facility Level Part B – ERG classified 10 facilities as “high’ priority. For this 

group of facilities, response completion ranged for most questions in Part B from about 80% to 

100%. ERG noted some confusion with units in questions B-12 and B-26. Where the 

questionnaire requested production and wastewater rates at average pounds or gallons per day, 

responses were occasionally in units of average pounds or gallons per days of operation. Because 

the questionnaire did not ask the total number of days of operation the true average could not be 

determined. This confusion is likely a result of the questionnaire wording and that facilities 

normally report production rates at average pounds per day of operation through their annual 

reports to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 

Medium Priority Facility Level Part B – ERG classified 8 facilities as “medium” priority. For 

this group of facilities, the completion ranged for most questions in Part B from about 60% to 

100%. Only 3 out of 47 questions were completed by all 8 facilities. One facility failed to 

complete the majority of the questionnaire. ERG noted inconsistencies in units for question B16. ERG also noted inconsistencies in reporting how process wastewater was managed within 

one facility. 

Lower Priority Facility Level Part B – ERG classified 33 facilities as “lower” priority. For this 

group of facilities, for most questions in Part B, completion ranged from about 42% to 100%. 

Again, only 3 out of 47 questions were completed by all 33 facilities. Seven facilities left entire 

sections of the questionnaire blank. ERG noted inconsistencies in units for question B-16. ERG 

also noted inconsistencies in reporting how process wastewater was managed within one facility. 

For example, facilities that claim to discharge to the sewer were unable to provide names of 

municipalities. ERG used several secondary sources to replace the missing treatment plant 

information. For this reason, ERG concluded respondents may have confused outfalls and 

municipal sewer systems. 

Clarifications and confirmations made using secondary data were not made directly in the 

database. Instead, ERG extracted database information into tables and compared it to secondary 

 

2

Several facilities submitted supplemental information late and while subjected to the same tracking and QC 

processes, those late responses were not included in the range and logic check analysis.
8 

references. Changes were made to only these external tables that were eventually used for cost 

calculations. ERG documented all sources for cost calculations in the comment section of the 

costing table. Below are some examples of how ERG completed some the missing questionnaire 

information. 

• Where financial information was missing, EPA contacted the parent company to follow 

up and receive additional information. 

• Where production rates, water use, species processed, and units were inconsistent, ERG 

used annual reports to verify questionnaire responses. Where available, ERG also used 

annual reports to identify the number of days in operation for facilities that reported 

average pounds or gallons per days of operation. 

• ERG also used site visit reports and direct contact with facility operators to complete 

missing information in regards to facility operations, such as wastewater management, 

seafood processing, waste management, by product management, site layout/dock space, 

and waste hauling practices. ERG visited 9 out of 10 of the high priority facilities and 3 

facilities in the other categories. 

• Where percent yield rates were missing, ERG used from Bimbo, 20103 as reasonable 

estimates of salmon byproduct yields. These values are consistent with estimates of the 

weight of solids in the raw waste provided by Bechtel and Smiley, 20094. The rationale 

for this assumption is summarized in the memoranda Byproduct Yield Assumption for 

Alaska Seafood Processing Cost Estimate (March 8, 2011). 

4. DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT: MEETING QAPP SPECIFICATIONS 

The quality specifications for “qualified: best available data” from the questionnaire are 

discussed in section 2.4.1.1 of the QAPP. These six criteria include Unambiguous, Internal 

Consistency, Completeness, Reasonableness, Representativeness, and Comparability. The 

sections that follow assess each criteria for questionnaire data used for cost estimates meet the 

specification. While most of the questionnaire data was reviewed, ERG had selected six 

questions to focus on in this analysis and to present in this section. ERG selected these six 

questionnaire responses because they were intended to be used directly in the costing exercise 

and could be evaluated well under each criteria. These questions include: 

• B-11: Total Pounds of Raw Product Processed Annually from 2005-2009 by Species 

• B-12: Seasonal Average Pounds per Day of Seafood Processes By Month and Species 

• B-13: Peak Week and Day Production Rates by Species 

• B-18: By-Product Production Totals 

• B-24: Estimates of Product, By-Product and Waste Yields by Species 

• B-26: Average Volume of Seafood Processing Wastewater Discharged by Month 

 

3

 Anthony Bimbo, Alaska Seafood Byproducts: 2008 Update on Potential Products, Markets, and Competing 

Product, 2009.

4

 Peter J. Bechtel, Scott Smiley.“A Sustainable Future: Fish Processing Byproducts”. February 25-26, 2009. 
9 

4.1. Unambiguous

Unambiguous responses are clear and easily interpreted without confusion. Table 3 shows 

how the questionnaire responses meet the unambiguous specifications. 

Table 3 - Unambiguous Acceptance Criteria Assessment 

Question 

Number 

Units of Measure are 

Identified 

Responses to Open-ended 

Questions are Clear 

The Question was Interpreted 

Consistently by Multiple 

Respondents 

Number of responses for 

which the criteria is true out 

of total applicable responses

Number of responses for 

which the criteria is true out 

of total applicable responses 

True/False 

B-11 47/52 14/14 True

B-12 48/52 13/13 True 

B-13 48/52 12/12 True 

B-18 11/17 6/6 True

B-24 48/52 11/12 True 

B-26 23/52 NA Falsea

NA – Not Applicable 

a. Flows were provided in average gallons per day of operation, and the questionnaire did not ask for the total number of days of operation. 

Due to the variability of salmon season and operating days, the true average flow per day is unclear. 

4.2. Internal Consistency

ERG evaluated internal consistency by checking that the answers to questions were 

consistent with answers to other related questions. ERG evaluated this criterion by looking at 

the species of seafood processed and reported for questions B-11, B-12, B-13, and B-24. 

Table 4 shows how the questionnaire responses meet the internal consistency specifications. 

Table 4 - Unambiguous Acceptance Criteria Assessment 

Question 

Number 

Responses Follow Questionnaire Skip 

Patterns 

Responses to Multiple Questions Asking for 

Similar or Related Information are 

Comparable and Consistent 

Number of responses for which the 

criteria is true out of total applicable 

responses 

Number of responses for which the criteria is 

true out of total applicable responsesa, b

B-11 NA 45/48 

B-12 NA 45/48 

B-13 NA 46/48

B-18 

46/52 facilities either completed or 

skipped this question appropriately NA 

B-24 NA 36/48

B-26 NA NA 

NA – Not Applicable 

a. Consistency between reported species of seafood was used as the comparison criteria. 

b. Note that of the 52 facility responses four facilities left these questions blank and were not included in the consistency criteria resulting in 

a total of 48 total applicable responses. 
10 

4.3. Completeness

ERG evaluated completeness by checking that all facilities provided responses to all 

applicable questions. Table 5 below shows the number of facilities that to provided responses 

to the six specific questions out of the total number of facilities the question applied to. Table 

6 shows the number of questions each facility answered out of the total number of questions 

applicable to each facility. 

Table 5 - Completeness Acceptance Criteria Assessment 

Question 

Number 

Question Answered by All Respondents to 

Which it Applies 

Number of responses for which the criteria is 

true out of total applicable responses 

B-11 47/52

B-12 48/52

B-13 48/52

B-18 11/17

B-24 48/52

B-26 48/52

Table 6 – Completion by Facility 

Plant Name Number of 

Questions Answered 

Total Number of 

Applicable Questions 

% 

Completion

Alyeska Seafoods, Inc 28 31 90%

Trident - Akutan 29 31 94%

Westward - Dutch Harbor 28 31 90%

Peter Pan - King Cove 22 26 85%

Trident - Sand Point 29 31 94%

Icicle - Northern Victor, Udagak Bay 30 31 97%

Icicle - P/V Arctic Star, Pribilof Islands 17 19 89%

Icicle - RM Thorstenson, Pribilof Islands 17 19 89%

E.C. Phillips and Sons 16 19 84%

Trident - Ketchikan Cannery 31 31 100%

Trident – North Naknek 17 19 89%

Peter Pan Seafoods - Dillingham 17 19 89%

Peter Pan Seafoods - Port Moller 17 19 89%

Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Alitak 17 19 89%

Icicle - Larsen 17 19 89%

Icicle - Egegik Plant 17 19 89%

Trident - M/V Alaska Packer 16 19 84%

Trident – Chignik Plant 16 19 84%

Trident -Wrangell 16 26 62%

Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Excursion Inlet 17 19 89%

Icicle - P/V Arctic Star 17 19 89%

Icicle - P/V Bering Star 17 19 89%

Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Naknek 17 19 89%

Trident / Norquest - M/V Pribilof 17 19 89%

Trident - M/V Independence 17 19 89%

Trident / Norquest - Chignik 15 19 79%

Trident / Norquest - Ketchikan 16 26 62%
11 

Plant Name Number of 

Questions Answered 

Total Number of 

Applicable Questions 

% 

Completion

Icicle - P/V Discovery Star 17 19 89%

Peter Pan Seafoods - Valdez 16 26 62%

Trident / Norquest - Aleutian Falcon 17 19 89%

Icicle Seafoods - Petersburg Fisheries 22 26 85%

Supreme Alaska Seafoods - M/V Excellence 4 31 13%

Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Nikiski 17 19 89%

E.C. Phillips and Sons – Craig Fisheries 14 24 58%

Trident / Norquest - Petersburg STB Mitkof 20 24 83%

Trident / Norquest - Petersburg Plant 17 19 89%

Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Petersburg 17 19 89%

Kenai River Plant/Kasilof River Plant/K-Beach 

Plant 17 19 89%

Snug Harbor Seafoods 27 31 87%

Icicle - Seward Fisheries 30 31 97%

Trident - Cordova South Plant 17 19 89%

Trident - Cordova North 28 31 90%

Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Cordova 17 19 89%

Copper River - Cordova 17 19 89%

Alaska Glacier Seafoods 23 24 96%

Icicle - P/V Northern Victor 2 31 6%

Trident - St. Paul 17 19 89%

Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Kodiak Plant (Gibson 

Cove) 2 31 6%

Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Kodiak Facility 24 24 100%

Westward - Kodiak 23 24 96%

Trident - Kodiak (vessel) 20 24 83%

Copper River - Anchorage 15 24 63%

4.4. Reasonableness

Reasonable responses include reported values and facts that are consistent with operating 

seafood processing plant information gathered from ADEC, EPA Region 10, and other EPA 

approved resources. Details there were checked include the variety of species processed; pounds 

of seafood processed monthly; and annual production rates. Where data was available a percent 

error was calculated to determine reasonableness.

4.5. Representativeness

ERG evaluated representativeness by looking at how the facilities that responded to the 

questionnaire reflect the population of seafood processing plants in non-remote Alaska locations 

that are the subject of the industry petition. Table 8 shows the count of the number of facilities 

surveyed and visited out of all the facilities in each of the processing centers in non-remote 

Alaska locations that are the subject of the industry petition.
12 

Table 8 – Representativeness Acceptance Criteria Assessment 

Processing 

Center Number of 

Surveyed 

Facilities 

Number of 

Facilities 

Where a 

Site Visit 

was 

Conducted 

Total 

Number of 

Facilities 

in the 

Processing 

Center Facilities not Surveyed 

Facilities Where a Site 

Visit was Conducted 

Number of 

Facilities Out 

of Total That 

Were 

Surveyed and 

/or Visited 

Ketchikan 

3 4 5 

Alaska General SeafoodsPacific Sun 

Trident Seafoods (Norquest) Trident Seafoods Alaska General E.C. Phillips 4 of 5 

Petersburg 3 2 3 none Icicle Petersburg Fisheries Trident (Norquest) 3 of 3 

Juneau 1 2 2 Taku Fisheries Alaska Glacier Seafoods Trident (Norquest 2 of 2 

Cordova 

4 4 4 none 

Copper River SeafoodsOcean Beauty Seafoods Trident (Norquest) Trident North 4 of 4 

Sitka 

0 0 3 

Silver Bay SeafoodNorth Pacific Seafoods (Sitka Sound Seafoods) Seafood Producers Coop none 0 of 3 

Kenai/ 

Seward 

4 0 13 

Polar Seafoods, Inc Resurrection Bay Sealevel Seafoods Pacific Star Seafoods Salamatof Seafoods Kenai Landing/Kenai River Seafoods1,2Sea Level Seafoods Carlson's Seafoods Port & Harbor of Homer none 4 of 13 

Dutch 

Harbor3 4 0 5 Harbor Crown Seafoods none 2 of 54 

1 The only operations at Kenai Landing is the fish oil plant operated by Scientific Fisheries. 2 For the costing analysis, ERG has considered all Inlet facilities on Kenai as one facility. 3 Only land-based facilities are included in this assessment 4 Two facilities did not complete the questionnaire.
13 

4.6. Comparability

ERG compared questionnaire information to production information in annual reports. More 

specifically, ERG compared the pounds of raw product processed between 2005 through 2009 

for four facilities. These four facilities were chosen based on its processing center priority; 

completeness of the questionnaire; and completeness of annual reports. The comparability goals 

according to the QAPP include5: 

• Questionnaire-reported discharge flows, production, and/or pounds of waste discharged 

are not more than 15% different from values included in the facility annual report.

Table 9 shows the relative percent difference for average pounds of raw product processed from 

2005 through 2009 for four plants whose annual report information was extracted. Two of the 

four facilities met the 15% comparability goal. Based on the Table 9, questionnaire production 

was always underreported when compared to the annual reports. It is possible that some species 

processing was not reported in the questionnaire. 

Table 9 – Comparability Acceptance Criteria Assessment 

Facility Name 

From Questionnaire From Annual Reports 

Relative 

Percent 

Difference

Production 

(lbs of raw product/year 

averaged over 2005-2009) 

Production 

(lbs of raw product/year 

averaged over 2005-2009) 

E.C. Phillips and Sons 13,646,656 17,093,595 20%

Trident Ketchikan Cannery 18,633,400 21,731,708 14%

Ocean Beauty Seafoods -

Nikiski 3,150,200 4,397,238 28%

Kenai River Plant/Kasilof 

River Plant/K-Beach Plant 6,172,800 6,260,643 1%

5. EVALUATION OF DATA USED FOR COSTING 

After the review of the data quality and the closer evaluation of responses to six costing 

questions for their compliance with the six data quality acceptance criteria, ERG determined 

which data would be suitable for use in the cost calculations. In addition, ERG evaluated the 

questionnaire response quality by processing center before deciding to accept or reject 

questionnaire data for costing purposes. These six questions had been preselected to be used 

directly for cost estimates, but not all met the quality criteria. Due to quality issues with 

responses to two of the six questions (B-18 and B26) they were ultimately not used. Instead ERG 

changed their costing approach in order to use other data in place of those two questions. 

 

•

5

 The QAPP comparability goals included: “Questionnaire-reported discharge flows, production, and/or 

pounds of waste discharged are not more than 50% different from the values reported in the Notice of 

Intent (NOI).” NOI do not provide sufficient detail to compare to questionnaire-reported values, so ERG 

did not use this goal to evaluate questionnaire data quality.
14 

5.1. Accepted Data

Based on the data quality assessment, responses to questions B-11, B-12, B-13, and B-24 for the 

high priority facilities met the criteria and were used for costing inputs with a few exceptions. 

• B-11: Total Pounds of Raw Product Processed Annually from 2005-2009 by Species 

• B-12: Seasonal Average Pounds per Day of Seafood Processes By Month and Species 

• B-13: Peak Week and Day Production Rates by Species 

• B-24: Estimates of Product, By-Product and Waste Yields by Species 

The responses to these questions were most importantly unambiguous, included units, and while 

not all facilities provided responses, the responses that were provided were sound. In addition, 

ERG was able to spot check many of the responses with annual reports and site visit reports to 

verify reasonable response ranges. Species processed, production rates, and production yields 

were compared to annual reports. Dates for peak production days and weeks were compared to 

typical salmon season. In addition, ERG checked that peak rates were within reason of their 

reported average production rates (i.e., not less than average rate). Any questionable responses 

were flagged and double checked with a secondary reference. Any missing information was 

supplemented with available data in the annual reports for the purpose of costing. 

Where the production rates were reported for average pounds per days of operation (instead of 

average pounds per day over the month), ERG extracted the number of operating days from 

annual reports and calculated the average production rates per day. Where production days were 

not available, ERG assumed that during salmon season (i.e., June, July, and August) the facilities 

operated a total of 91 days. Facilities that reported operating days in their annual reports ranged 

from 26 days to 31 days per month during those months. 

5.2. Rejected or Incomplete Data

The data collected in question B-18 regarding byproduct production was not completed by 6 out 

of 17 facilities that had a byproduct operation. Further, the by-product yield value for a few 

facilities were too large as compared to their production rates and by products produced. Based 

on site visits, Alaska Protein Recovery and Trident Cordova plants only processed salmon heads 

for salmon oil. The information that was collected was determined to be reliable based on 

verification with by-product plant operators and site visit reports. ERG worked to fill in missing 

information from the six facilities that failed to complete the question using similar resources, 

such as communication with the industry, site visit reports, and EPA Region 10. However, the 

final dataset was not used in the final costing calculations. 

Question B-26, which asked for average volume of seafood processing wastewater discharged, 

did not meet the quality assurance acceptance criteria. Further, ERG was unable to fill in missing 

information with secondary sources. In addition, the question gave responders the option of 

providing waste water flow or water use flow. Unfortunately, this option resulted in further 

misinterpretation of the question. 

Although completeness does not appear to be an issue for any questions addressed in Table 5, it 

was because most of the facilities did attempt to provide responses. However, only 23 of 52 
15 

facilities provided units. Those that did provide units reported gallons per day (others reported 

gallons per month or gallons per days of operation), but water use ranged from 36,000 gpd to 

27,780,979 gpd in July. As a result, ERG was unable to identify which end of the range was 

unreasonable or a result of a unit error. The reported values also did not have a secondary data 

source for which to compare. 

ERG also identified inconsistencies with flow rates and salmon season (B-18 and B-26). For 

example, some facilities the months when production was the greatest did not always correlate to 

the months with highest waste water flow. ERG suspects this inconsistnacy may be due to 

variability in water use for processing various species, but was unable to confirm whether the 

responses were reasonable or followed internal consistency with spikes in production. Overall, 

ERG concluded that the question was confusing and led to a variety of interpretations. As a 

result, ERG did not use the information provided in question B-18 and B-26. To determine 

facility waste water generation for costing, ERG instead used the production normalized flow 

reported in the original 1979 industry report6 to determine each facility’s waste water generation 

flow based on each facility’s production rates. 

ERG also did not use responses to B-30 in regards to waste transport vessels and vessel 

ownership for cost estimates. These were open ended questions that did not apply to many 

facilities and could not be fully evaluated by the acceptance criteria. However, based on the 

information that was received, ERG still felt that these responses would not be appropriate to use 

in the cost calculations. Instead ERG relied on information collected during site visits and 

follow-up communication with by-product plant operators. 

6. QUESTIONNAIRE DATA QUALITY: RESPONSES TO KEY INDIVIDUAL 

RESPONSES (FACILITY AND FIRM ECONOMIC INFORMATION)

The questionnaire data used in the financial modeling were reviewed by the lead economist and 

her staff. All questionnaire data used directly in the financial modeling were extracted manually 

and input directly into the economic model. These data included data found in Questions A-13 

and A-16, in Part A and Questions B-43 and B-44 in Part B. The Part A answers were assessed 

individually by the lead economist to determine if they seemed reasonable in light of what was 

known about the firm regarding employment size and corporate structure and what seemed 

reasonable with respect to prevailing interest rates, both among all the firms surveyed and those 

generally available in the market place. The part B questions on revenues and costs for the years 

requested was reviewed by the lead economist for consistency with financial reports submitted 

by the firms, to ensure that line items added properly to totals, that each line item seemed 

appropriate in terms of magnitude, given the known sizes of facilities, and that line items across 

years seemed to change in reasonable ways. These judgments do not rely on any hard and fast 

rules because financial data can vary in many ways, and given that there are little publicly 

available data with which to compare, the ability to fine-tune any reality checking of the 

financial data is minimal. Addition checks did, however, identify one small error in addition, 

 

6

 E.C. Jordan Co, 1979 Reassessment of Effluent Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Canned 

and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source Category. Prepared for USEPA Effluent Guidelines Division 

December 1979. 
16 

which was corrected so that the reported costs summed to the reported total for one year at one 

facility. 

For single-facility firms, however, ERG was able to review annual reports or tax returns that 

provided the same line items at the firm level as those at the facility level provided in Questions 

B-43 and B-44. These reviews were done to determine the accuracy of the survey-reported 

information. In a few instances, the information submitted for a facility did not seem consistent 

with the information in the annual report or tax return submitted for its firm (which should be the 

same for single-facility firms, or at least the firm’s line items should not be less than the 

facility’s). Annual reports are generally considered more accurate than survey entries, since they 

are typically reviewed by more than one person and might even be audited in some cases. Tax 

returns are also granted greater consideration than survey responses. The following documents 

the changes made to survey data based on reviews of firm-level financial statements. 

• The reported depreciation for one facility was greater than that listed in the firm’s annual 

report. For this facility, we replaced the facility depreciation with that reported at the firm 

level. 

• For one facility, none of the facility numbers in Questions B-43 or B-44 could be 

reconciled with the firm-level financial information, and the facility information provided 

did not seem reasonable given the financial statements provided. We determined that the 

annual report numbers should be used instead for the facility and the firm. 

• For one facility, only one year’s total cost in Question B-44 did not match the firm’s 

financial statement submission (all other year’s costs matched), so ERG used the total 

cost reported in the financial statement to replace the questionable cost in that year. 

• For one facility, we determined that the facility’s reported costs did not, in fact, include 

depreciation by comparing the survey-reported costs with the financial statements. This 

observation allowed us to modify the calculation of cash flow for this one facility to 

accommodate this difference in reporting. 

Once all numbers were confirmed to be reasonable and adding properly, an ERG analyst hand 

entered the numbers into the economic model. A second analyst reviewed the transcribed 

numbers, and the lead analyst reviewed any final changes made to the numbers. 

ERG imputed financial line item data for two facilities and one firm for certain years. One of the 

facilities had been purchased in 2008, so no data were available for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Since 

the facility was previously operational, ERG used the average percent change in costs and 

revenues for all other facilities in that facility’s processing center between 2008 and 2007 and 

2007 to 2006 to estimate costs and revenues for the facility with missing data. For the other 

facility (and its firm), data were missing from 2005 and 2006. For this firm and facility, for 

reasons provided in ERG’s CBI results memo,7 the firm’s (and facility’s) 2007 financial data 

were used as a proxy for 2005 and 2006 financial data. 

 

7

 ERG, 2011. Final Costs and Impact Analysis for Alaska Seafood Processors (Facilities and Firms). CBI document, 

draft dated August 8, 2011 
17 

Interest rates, requested in Question A-16, were missing for a few firms. OMB 8provides a 

recommended discount rate of 7 percent, which is routinely used in economic analysis when 

interest rates are not available or are considered out of line with market rates. The OMB rate is 

generally higher than the real rates charged by lending institutions at the time of the survey, so 

using the OMB rate yields a higher estimate of the cost of capital (that is, results in higher 

estimates of impacts) than had the average interest rate for all firms been used instead. 

Additionally, a couple of firms did not provide their corporate structure. For these firms, we 

assigned the corporate structure that resulted in the lowest assumed marginal tax rate because the 

lower the marginal tax rate, the higher the estimate of the post-tax cost of compliance would be, 

thereby avoiding the possibility of underestimating aggregate costs and impacts. 

 

8OMB, 2003. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2003. Circular A-4, Subject: Regulatory Analysis, 

November. 
18 

ATTACHMENT A: 

RANGE AND LOGIC CHECK TABLES
19 

Table 1 - Range and Logic Checks for Questionnaire Part A 

Question 

Dependant 

Questions Topic Consistency Check Min Max Yes No Priority 

Completion 

Quality Issues/N

A1 Contact Info NA NA 9/9 A2 Ownership Type 

If "Yes" A3-A11 should be completed NA NA 4* 3 High 7/9 

EC Phillips not answer 3Maruha Nich

 A3 Ownership NA NA 4/4  A4 Business Type NA NA 4/4  A5 Accounting Reports NA NA 3 1 4/4  A6 State NA NA 4/4  A7 Highest Corporate NA NA 3 1 4/4  A8 Corp Contry NA NA 3/3  A9 NAICS NA NA 0/4 Poor Compl A10 Total Employment 7 2988 3/4  A11 Total Revenue 

10 

Mil 9.97 Bil 3/4 

A12 

Fishing Vessels Owned 0 10 7/9 

A12 Barges Owned 0 2 7/9 A12 Scows Owned 0 1 7/9 A12 Tugs Owned 0 0 7/9 A12 

Processing Vessels Owned 0 5 7/9 

A13 

Business Organization NA NA 9/9 

A14 State of Legal Entity NA NA 9/9 All are AlasA15 Fiscal Year NA NA 9/9 All start in JA16 Interest Rate 2% 8% 9/9 A17 Accounting Reports NA NA 9 0 High 9/9 A18 Single Facility 

If "No" A19-A21 should be completed NA NA 5 4* 9/9 

 A19 US Facilities 2 10 2/4 Poor Compl A19 US Employees 213 516 2/4 Poor Compl A20 Revenues 

0.2 

Mil 405 Mil High 5/4 

Copper Riveanswered "Y

 A21 Operating Costs 

16 

Mil 424 Mil High 5/4 

Copper Riveanswered "Y

*Number of Answers expected on dependent Questions 
20 

Table 2 - Range and Logic Checks for Questionnaire Part B - High Priority

Question 

Dependant 

Questions Topic Consistency Check Min Max Yes No Priority 

Completion 

Quality 

Issu

Id

B1 Facility Name NA NA 10/10 B2 Lat/Long NA NA 10/10 B3 NPDES# NA NA 10/10 B4 Contact Info NA NA 10/10 B5 Products 

If answer is "only 2ndary products" survey is complete NA NA High 10/10 

3/10 pbyprodNone second

B6 Type of Facility 

If answer is "Offshore Vessel" survey is complete NA NA 10/10 

All arbased 

B7 

Year Operations Began 1996 1904 10/10 

B8 Capacity (lbs/day) 120,000 6,798,238 High 10/10 B9 Expansion 0 500,000 7/10 B10 

Type of Marine Life 

Answer should be consistent with B11-B13, B18, B24 NA NA High 10/10 

B11 lbs Processed/yr 

See query See query High 10/10 

Compall yea

B12 

Average lbs processed/day 

See query See query High 10/10 

total ounique by fac

B13 Peak Production 

See query See query High 10/10 

total ounique by fac

B14 

Secondary Byproducts 

If answer is "Yes" B15-B22 should be completed NA NA 3* 6 9/10 

 B15 

When Byproduct began 2009 1974 3/3 

 B16 

Byproduct Capacity 

240000lbs/day 960000lbs High 3/3 

units aincons
21 

Question 

Dependant 

Questions Topic Consistency Check Min Max Yes No Priority 

Completion 

Quality 

Issu

Id

 B17 Why Byproducts NA NA 2/3  B18 

Production by type&year 145 706000 High 3/3 

1 facilprovidoperat

 B19 

Raw Materials/Waste 1750000 11310738 3/3 

 B20 

Accept from other facility 

If answer is "Yes" B21-B22 should be completed NA NA 2* 8 10/10 

 B21 

Distance/Transportation 0 1.5 0/2 

 B22 

Cost of Transportation 20 20 1/2 

neitheannua

B23 Process Schematic NA NA High 10/10 B24 

Percent to product/waste NA NA High 10/10 

B25 

Wastewater Disposal method NA NA 10/10 

All dithroug(Inconwith 1 discha

B26 

Volume of waste to outfall (gpd) 0 

25.06 million High 9/10 

EC Phprovid3 othedid noyear 

B27 Solids Separations 

If answer is "Yes" B28-B34 should be completed NA NA 2* 8 10/10 

Ocean AKG5should "Yes" 

 B28 Storage Capacity 0 40,000 lbs 2/2  B29 

Solids Management NA NA 2/2 

 B30 

Vessel used for Solids Transport NA NA 2/2 

 B31 

Location of disposal site NA NA 2/2 

 B32 Unable to Haul NA NA 0 2 2/2 

Assumanswe
22 

Question 

Dependant 

Questions Topic Consistency Check Min Max Yes No Priority 

Completion 

Quality 

Issu

Id

 B33 

Accept waste from other facility NA NA 1 2 2/2 

 B34 

Use of separate company for disposal NA NA 0 2 2/2 

B35 

Use of separate company for transport NA NA 0 10 10/10 

B36 

Sufficient Dock Space NA NA 2 8 10/10 

B37 

% of shoreline/dock space used 

35% Dock 0%Shore 

100% Dock 100% Shore 10/10 

B38 

Distance to Offsite Byproduct 0 mi 713 mi 8/10 

B39 

Long term agreements NA NA 5 3 8/10 

B40 Dormant Facilities NA NA 8/10 

AlaskRecovthe onfacilit

B41 

Facilities in the Near Future NA NA 0 8 8/10 

B42 Financial Contact NA NA 10/10 B43 Revenues 

See query See query 10/10 

B44 Operating Costs 

See query See query 10/10 

B45 Employees total 

See query See query 9/10 

B46 

Employees during peak 63 530 9/10 

B47 Max Labor Hours 24 8332 9/10 

*Number of Answers expected on dependent Questions 
23 

Table 3 - Range and Logic Checks for Questionnaire Part B - Medium Priority 

Question Dependant Questions Topic Consistency Check Min Max Yes No Priority Completion Quality Is

B1 Facility Name NA NA 8/8 B2 Lat/Long NA NA 8/8 B3 NPDES# NA NA 8/8 B4 Contact Info NA NA 7/8 B5 Products 

If answer is "only 2ndary products" survey is complete NA NA High 7/8 

3/onbyon

B6 Type of Facility 

If answer is "Off- shore Vessel" survey is complete NA NA 6/8 

Alba

B7 

Year Operations Began 2002 1910 6/8 

B8 Capacity (lbs/day) 300000 2000000 High 7/8 B9 Expansion 50000 600000 4/8 B10 Type of Marine Life 

Answer should be consistent with B11-B13, B18, B24 NA NA High 6/8 

ASndiprprin

B11 lbs Processed/yr 

See query See query High 6/8 

Cofois 

B12 

Average lbs processed/day 

See query See query High 7/8 

tounspfa

B13 Peak Production 

See query See query High 7/8 

tounspfa

B14 

Secondary Byproducts 

If answer is "Yes" B15-B22 should be completed NA NA 3* 4 7/8 
24 

Question Dependant Questions Topic Consistency Check Min Max Yes No Priority Completion Quality Is

 B15 

When Byproduct began 2007 1974 3/3 

 B16 Byproduct Capacity 

30 tons/yr 800000lbs/day High 3/3 

unin

 B17 Why Byproducts NA NA 3/3  B18 

Production by type&year 65 17445791 High 3/3 

 B19 

Raw Materials/Waste 8074463 194107612 2/3 

Snstage

 B20 

Accept from other facility 

If answer is "Yes" B21-B22 should be completed NA NA 0* 7 7/8 

 B21 

Distance/Transportation 0/0 

 B22 

Cost of Transportation 0/0 

B23 Process Schematic NA NA High 7/8 B24 

Percent to product/waste NA NA High 7/8 

B25 

Wastewater Disposal method NA NA 7/8 

Althouins) 

B26 

Volume of waste to outfall (gpd) 0 2.62 Million High 6/8 

Snprda

B27 Solids Separations 

If answer is "Yes" B28-B34 should be completed NA NA 6* 1 7/8 

 B28 Storage Capacity 0 300000 lbs 5/6  B29 Solids Management NA NA 6/6  B30 

Vessel used for Solids Transport NA NA 6/6 

 B31 

Location of disposal site NA NA 2/6 
25 

Question Dependant Questions Topic Consistency Check Min Max Yes No Priority Completion Quality Is

 B32 Unable to Haul NA NA 0 6 6/6 

Aan"N

 B33 

Accept waste from other facility NA NA 0 6 6/6 

 B34 

Use of separate company for disposal NA NA 0 6 6/6 

B35 

Use of separate company for transport NA NA 0 7 7/8 

B36 

Sufficient Dock Space NA NA 1 6 7/8 

B37 

% of shoreline/dock space used 

50% Dock 0% Shore 

100% Dock 100% Shore 7/8 

B38 

Distance to Offsite By producty 1 Mi 150 Mi 6/8 

B39 

Long term agreements NA NA 2 4 6/8 

B40 Dormant Facilities NA NA 6/8 NB41 

Facilities in the Near Future NA NA 0 6 6/8 

B42 Financial Contact NA NA 7/8 B43 Revenues 

See query See query 7/8 

B44 Operating Costs 

See query See query 7/8 

B45 Employees total 

See query See query 7/8 

B46 

Employees during peak 63 674 7/8 

B47 Max Labor Hours 756 8000 7/8 

*Number of Answers expected on dependent Questions 
26 

Table 4 - Range and Logic Checks for Questionnaire Part B - Low Priority 

Question 

Dependant 

Questions Topic 

Consistency 

Check Min Max Yes No Priority 

Completion 

Quality 

Issu

Ide

B1 Facility Name NA NA 33/33 B2 Lat/Long NA NA 23/33 

Many Vesse

B3 NPDES# NA NA 33/33 B4 Contact Info NA NA 33/33 B5 Products 

If answer is "only 2ndary products" survey is complete NA NA High 31/33 

23/seonly, byproonly, 

B6 Type of Facility 

If answer is "Off-shore Vessel" survey is complete NA NA 30/33 

All arbased 

B7 

Year Operations Began 2009 1895 31/33 

B8 Capacity (lbs/day) 140000 3000000 High 28/33 B9 Expansion 0 350000 12/33 B10 

Type of Marine Life 

Answer should be consistent with B11-B13, B18, B24 NA NA High 30/33 

B11 lbs Processed/yr See query See query High 30/33 B12 

Average lbs processed/day See query See query High 29/33 

Alask- AK5had atotal o81unispeciefacilit
27 

Question 

Dependant 

Questions Topic 

Consistency 

Check Min Max Yes No Priority 

Completion 

Quality 

Issu

Ide

B13 Peak Production See query See query High 30/33 

total ouniquby fac

B14 

Secondary Byproducts 

If answer is "Yes" B15-B22 should be completed NA NA 5* 24 29/33 

 B15 

When Byproduct began 1998 1987 5/5 

 B16 

Byproduct Capacity 6hours 2640000lbs/day High 5/5 

units incon

 B17 Why Byproducts NA NA 4/5  B18 

Production by type & year 125811 28546920 High 5/5 

 B19 

Raw Materials/Waste 1036390 428362333 5/5 

 B20 

Accept from other facility 

If answer is "Yes" B21-B22 should be completed NA NA 0* 31 31/33 

 B21 

Distance/Transportation (miles) 0/0 

 B22 

Cost of Transportation 0/0 

B23 

Process Schematic NA NA High 30/33 

B24 

Percent to product/waste NA NA High 30/33 

B25 

Wastewater Disposal method NA NA 29/33 

5 did dischoutfaldischthrou(3 inconand 1 muninot pr
28 

Question 

Dependant 

Questions Topic 

Consistency 

Check Min Max Yes No Priority 

Completion 

Quality 

Issu

Ide

B26 

Volume of waste to outfall 0 59.24 million High 30/33 

13 facdid noyear 

B27 Solids Separations 

If answer is "Yes" B28-B34 should be completed NA NA 7* 23 30/33 

MaruNichiAK00shoul"yes" 

 B28 Storage Capacity 0 800000 lbs 4/7  B29 

Solids Management NA NA 6/7 

 B30 

Vessel used for Solids Transport NA NA 7/7 

 B31 

Location of disposal site NA NA 3/7 

B32 Unable to Haul NA NA 1 6 7/7 

Assumanswe"No" Only GlaciAKGindicahaulin

 B33 

Accept waste from other facility NA NA 0 7 7/7 

 B34 

Use of separate company for disposal NA NA 0 7 7/7 

B35 

Use of separate company for transport NA NA 0 31 31/33 

B36 

Sufficient Dock Space NA NA 5 26 31/33 

B37 

% of shoreline/dock space used 

0% Dock 0% Shore 

100% Dock 100% Shore 31/33 

B38 

Distance to Offsite Byprod 1 Mi 792 Mi 26/33 

B39 

Long term agreements NA NA 2 24 26/33 
29 

Question 

Dependant 

Questions Topic 

Consistency 

Check Min Max Yes No Priority 

Completion 

Quality 

Issu

Ide

B40 

Dormant Facilities NA NA 26/33 None 

B41 

Facilities in the Near Future NA NA 0 26 26/33 

B42 

Finanacial Contact NA NA 30/33 

B43 Revenues See query See query 29/33 B44 Operating Costs See query See query 29/33 B45 Employees total See query See query 26/33 

CoppAncoBlank 

B46 

Employees during peak 40 970 27/33 

B47 Max Labor Hours 431.25 13900 27/33 

*Number of Answers expected on dependent Questions 
30 

Table 5 - List of Companies and Facilities Included in the Range and Logic Checks 

Companies Checked for Questionnaire Part A 

Icicle 

Ocean Beauty 

Alaska Glacier 

EC Phillips 

Maruha Nichiro 

Maruha Nichiro 

Maruha Nichiro 

Snug Harbor 

Copper River 

Facilities Checked for Questionnaire Part B - High Priority 

Company Name Plant/Vessel Name (Part B) Permit Number Facility Location 

1-Trident Trident - Cordova South Plant AKG520491 Cordova 

1-Trident Trident / Norquest - Petersburg Plant AKG520476 Petersburg 

1-Trident Trident / Norquest - Ketchikan AKG520132 Ketchikan 

1-Trident Trident - Ketchikan Cannery AKG520002 Ketchikan

1-Trident Trident - Cordova North AKG520493 Cordova 

2 - Icicle Icicle Seafoods - Petersburg Fisheries AKG520303 Petersburg 

3 - Ocean Beauty Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Cordova AKG520494 Cordova 

3 - Ocean Beauty Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Petersburg AKG520477 Petersburg 

6 - EC Phillips E.C. Phillips and Sons AKG520001 Ketchikan 

9 - Copper River Copper River - Cordova AKG520524 Cordova 

Total 10 Facilities 

Facilities Checked for Questionnaire Part B - Medium Priority 

Company Name Plant/Vessel Name (Part B) Permit Number Facility Location 

1-Trident Trident - Kodiak (vessel) AKG528833 Kodiak 

2 - Icicle Icicle - Seward Fisheries AKG520488 Seward 

3 - Ocean Beauty Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Nikiski AKG520402 Kenai Peninsula 

3 - Ocean Beauty Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Kodiak Plant (Gibson Cove) AKG528486 Kodiak 

3 - Ocean Beauty Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Kodiak Facility AKG528493 Kodiak 

7 - Maruha Nichiro Westward - Dutch Harbor AK0049786 Dutch Harbor 

7 - Maruha Nichiro Westward - Kodiak AKG528825 Kodiak 

8 - Snug Harbor Snug Harbor Seafoods AKG520483 Kenai Peninsula 

Total 8 Facilities 

Facilities Check for Questionnaire Part B - Low Priority 

Company Name Plant/Vessel Name (Part B) Permit Number Facility Location 

1-Trident Trident / Norquest - Chignik AKG520103 Chignik 

1-Trident Trident – Chignik Plant AKG520053 Chignik 

1-Trident Trident – North Naknek AKG520003 Naknek 

1-Trident Trident - Akutan AK0037303 Akutan 

1-Trident Trident - Sand Point AK0052787 Sand Point 

1-Trident Trident -Wrangell AKG520058 Wrangell 

1-Trident Trident - St. Paul AKG527702 St Paul 

1-Trident Trident / Norquest - M/V Pribilof AKG520096 offshore 

1-Trident Trident / Norquest - Aleutian Falcon AKG520253 offshore 

1-Trident Trident - M/V Independence AKG520100 offshore 

1-Trident Trident / Norquest - Petersburg STB Mitkof AKG520475 Petersburg 

1-Trident Trident - M/V Alaska Packer AKG520052 offshore 

2 - Icicle Icicle - Egegik Plant AKG520048 Egegik 
31 

Facilities Check for Questionnaire Part B - Low Priority

Company Name Plant/Vessel Name (Part B) Permit Number Facility Location 

2 - Icicle Icicle - Larsen AKG520047 Larsen 

2 - Icicle Icicle - P/V Discovery Star AKG520163 offshore 

2 - Icicle Icicle - P/V Northern Victor AKG520533 offshore 

2 - Icicle Icicle - P/V Bering Star AKG520082 offshore

2 - Icicle Icicle - P/V Arctic Star AKG520062 offshore 

2 - Icicle Icicle - RM Thorstenson, Pribilof Islands AK0053520 offshore 

2 - Icicle Icicle - Northern Victor, Udagak Bay AK0052868 offshore 

2 - Icicle Icicle - P/V Arctic Star, Pribilof Islands AK0053503 offshore 

3 - Ocean Beauty Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Alitak AKG520036 Alitak 

3 - Ocean Beauty Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Excursion Inlet AKG520059 Excursion Inlet 

3 - Ocean Beauty Ocean Beauty Seafoods - Naknek AKG520092 Naknek 

7 - Maruha Nichiro Alyeska Seafoods, Inc AK0000272 Unalaska 

7 - Maruha Nichiro Peter Pan - King Cove AK0052388 King Cove 

7 - Maruha Nichiro Peter Pan Seafoods - Dillingham AKG520012 Dillingham 

7 - Maruha Nichiro Peter Pan Seafoods - Port Moller AKG520014 Port Moller 

7 - Maruha Nichiro Peter Pan Seafoods - Valdez AKG520244 Valdez 

7 - Maruha Nichiro Supreme Alaska Seafoods - M/V Excellence AKG520333 offshore 

5 - Alaska Glacier Alaska Glacier Seafoods AKG520528 Petersburg 

6 - EC Phillips E.C. Phillips and Sons – Craig Fisheries AKG520445 Craig 

9 - Copper River Copper River - Anchorage 

No Permtit - to 

City Sewer Anchorage 

Total 33 Facilities